Skip to main content

tv   Key Capitol Hill Hearings  CSPAN  August 8, 2014 4:00pm-6:01pm EDT

4:00 pm
i'll take my comments off the air, thanks. >> i find the lawsuit against obama frive russ, it's just a politically show to show that this is a one that is doing wrong. continuing of the disdain of obamacare, major legislation, the great legacy piece for obama's presidency, that no republican voted for it. so there's just frustration at obama, and it's coming out with this lawsuit to the point that it gets people talking about it. the same thing with impeachment . there were threats to impeach bill clinton and threats to impeach george w. bush. i think particularly in second term, fatigue comes in, and it just takes a couple of people to start using the i word, the impeachment word. none of this is compared to what was going with with nixon. with nixon, you're dealing with real true criminal abuse of power, and you're dealing with
4:01 pm
a president that was just drven out of the whourt. congress beached net, and there are only about 16 republican senators that would have backed nixon. nixon knew he was doomed. he left 40 years ago because there's no party turned on him. barry goldwater turned on nixon and said get out of here. that's not what conservatism is about. we're not about break the laws. so the conservative movement isn't shed. there's a new book out where he's talking about the fall of nixon and the rise of reagan, when nixon -- nixon used to say, at least in the tapes, people, the liberals hate me, don't understand. they lose me, it's all right-wing conservatism on the other side, that i'm the liberal moderate of the republican party.
4:02 pm
and instead of wanting to do business with me and liking me, they're trashing me, and they lose me, they're going to get to the far right. that's where the politics is at today. reagan is the anything beneficial. that's the thing, they're the two biggest political figures. there's really no such thing as a nixon republican or democratic democrat or jan son democrat but there are such things as reagan republicans, even reagan democrats. are the and reagan big figures. host: doug brinkley is a native of northeast ohio, a graduate, and he's dr. brinkley because of georgetown university. currently he teaches at rice. brian in east massachusetts, republican. hi, brian. caller: hi. thank you for taking my call. i had two questions for you. i understand that nixon's mother was a father and that
4:03 pm
his father was failed in a lemon rafrpbl. i wonder how that afect the nation. also, what about nixon's participation with whitaker chambers and the pumpkin paper? do you think that had any effect on when nixon resigned? thank you very much for my que. caller: you're pointing out, who is this boy, richard nixon? you talk about his parents. it's going to a whole linebacker. now it's all sprawled for nixon. when it was learn, he was a where i grew up. but it was a lot of talking cowboys and there was something defeat about nixon. he became the nerd out of high school, and then he became the wing tip businessman lawyer, and so he compensated for growing up in such a tough, hard-scrabble, macho
4:04 pm
environment by talking rough language. every moment in the take place, get him, the s.o.b., the bastards, and that was the way for him to dominate a room. it was a way to show that he was tough, and that matters to him a lot, because i believe he was not seen as being tough when he was young and grew up. there is -- there's a good book hat recently came out, a historian named swift, pat nixon and richard nixon, and really, their love story. i recommend you read that it's a father and a husband, and see, yes, but the one good thing, if you're feeling seniority for nixon, he knew politics was a blood sport. i mean, his goodbye 40 years ago was from theodore roosevelt speech, it's better to be in the arena than being marred by the dust and the blood and the
4:05 pm
sweat, to be one of those timid creatures that don't engage that sit on the sidelines. nixon took his resignation to be a hardball politician like himself. and he came back and tried to rehabilitate himself and did partially by writing books on foreign affairs, doing things like the froth nixon interviews, and to the point where when bill clinton is president, he's consulting nixon on the soviet union, or then russia what to do with some of the satellite countries, places like the ukraine and a lot. so nixon was seen as a foreign policy sage in his later years. when he died, all the former presidents came out to california to be at his time, or his burial. host: september 7, 1972, 10:32 a.m., following the shooting of controversial presidential candidate george wallace,
4:06 pm
prominent politicians, whether they were candidates for the presidency or not, were offered temporary secret service protection. this is bob haldeman, jon erlichman, and richard nixon. you've got one u.s. senator, kennedy, a secondary factor in the campaign. you give him secret service coverage throughout the ampaign, at the same time, haldeman, if he gets shot, it's our fault. nixon, you understand what the problem is? if he gets shot, they'll say we didn't fun initial it, so you just buy his insurance. then after the election, he doesn't get a g.d. thing. if he gets shot, too damn bad. guest: there's the tough language of nixon. it's eye-opening, right? he can't stand ted kennedy, and he trails ted kennedy around, but in this case, with the secret service, he says it goes
4:07 pm
on, and he'll say, i won't get a secret service, but i want him to be a spy for me, he even named secret service guys not to use. well, we'll put somebody so we'll get dirt on what kennedy is doing around the country. and then that whole line, once the election is over, let's pull the secret service in, who cares if he gets killed. that's the kind of quote, parts of the tape that just -- it just damages nixon's reputation terribly, because, you know, a ken dead kennedy is not talking about in that kind of fashion after we experienced j.f.k. and bobby's death, for him to be that crude, it doesn't look well. no mom and saying want you to have that attitude when you grow up. that's the kind of taul that ronald reagan would never, for example, have taken part in, or franklin roosevelt. host: last call for doug brinkley comes from cheryl in
4:08 pm
virginia. hi, cheryl. caller: yes, hi. thanks a lot. thank you, dr. brinkley. i was really glad to see you on today, because i have been tching on c-span the old hearings, you know, in congress about the impeachment and the attempt to impeach the president. how, theent nixon.i was strucky demeanor during the hearings. moreally there was so much o treat eachm t other with a manner of more respect than they do now. the snideness that i see now and the comments and the behavior toward each other in congress seems to be such a change in
4:09 pm
demeanor, or perhaps it was just the times. certain. considering how contentious this was, i was amazed. i've forgotten how well members could treat each other and respect each other during those hearings. thank you very much. you are absolutely right. in the american history books, and lot of bipartisanship, that is all of the legislation of the great society and all of nixon's legislative accomplishments. dealing,ing, wheeling, drinks on the town. it was less of a cutthroat culture. he watched the watergate hearings and you are absolutely right. you watch everybody behaved quite well and you look at people like howard baker, a republican being very tough on nixon.
4:10 pm
they are not taking a purely partisan view. these senators, when you watch watergate hearings, are concerned about objection of trust as is rightly be should be -- justice as rightly they should be. a circus,d be more of more shrill, more partisan. goldwater turns on nixon. he says this is not what we are about, i am not backing my career and my reputation my reputation on this kind of -- my integrity on this kind of behavior. everybody sidles up to their party to such a degree that it is discussed in the american people and nothing gets done. host: who is the third gentleman sitting on the opposite sofa?
4:11 pm
guest: i would have to look at that. looked and picked that picture because it is the king of jordan and henry kissinger. we would do that brightly yellow because one of the problems is that nixon did not do a lot of colorful photos. always very up tight, in the suit. but there with the king of jordan from the middle east, in muchom kippur war, he very backs israelite
4:12 pm
becomes a full bureau. -- israel and becomes a full olk hero. it was kissinger's shovel diplomacy in the middle east that really paint the way to the camp david accord. a lot of things that were accomplished with ford and beginnings ineir the nixon years. >> the nixon tapes, doug brinkley and luke nichter >> tomorrow, discussing the latest on u.s. military strikes against isis forces in iraq. then dave leventhal from the center of public integrity looking at his recent investigation into the irs exempt organization division. then the association of medical
4:13 pm
colleges on the dock or shortage in the u.s. and the impact it could have on patient health. on facebook,t calls, and tweets live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on saturday live on c-span. but age, we face have been getting thoughts on president obama's decision to authorize targeted airstrikes in iraq. hundreds have weighed in including -- we went to hear from you. log on and facebook to join the conversation and read the comments from others.
4:14 pm
>> debates on what a make -- on what makes america great. issues spotlight with in-depth looks at veterans health care, student loan debt, and campus sexual assault. never specter's on issues including global warming, voting rights, infectious diseases, and the history tour, sights and sounds from the store basis. find the tv schedule one week in advance on www.c-span.org. let us know about the programs you are watching. call us at -- e-mail us at comments@c -span.org. conversation. follow us on facebook. like us on twitter. ralph reed spoke at the annual western conservative summit in denver criticizing the obama administration's foreign-policy including the ongoing troubling ukrainian the
4:15 pm
middle east. the middle east, the bloodiest, most unstable region in the world is in flames from the horn ofss africa all the way to the mediterranean. in syria, a bloodthirsty desperate -- despot that this president drew a red line and the president said if he crossed it he would go forward. back to tha -- that dictator of hisughtered 160,000 own innocent civilians in order to keep our while this administration sat in the cheap seats and watched it happen. tree stand evangelical ministers have been beheaded by al qaeda terrorists -- catholic priests and evangelical
4:16 pm
ministers. the muslim brotherhood took power in egypt and immediately began to destabilize the sinai into the turning it wild west and it has now been replaced by a military regime. in iraq, isis presides over a muslim caliphate and over 60,000 christians in iraq, the last remaining in that country have literally had to flee for their lives. these terrorists are mocking the entire free world and essentially spitting on the gave of americans too their lives to liberate that country and this administration could not do anything other than send 300 military advisers. remarksof ralph reed's
4:17 pm
from last month at the western conservative summit in denver. watch the entire speech tonight on 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. congressis month while is in recess, we are showing " the tv" in primetime. "forcing on the book the spring -- inside the fight for marriage equality." blood feud -- the clintons versus the obamas." d.c., the mayor of incredible story of marion barry junior. that is tonight on c-span 2. and it's history tv" been 40 years since the watergate scandal. we will show nixon's resignation speech in the discussion about his fall from power and the
4:18 pm
white house tapes providing insight into his presidency. you can watch all of that tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 3. pacn july, a super announced they have collected $2.5 million and has received money room 90,000 supporters since it was founded in january 2013. at this year's net roots nation conference, a digital director and a facebook advisor talked about how it's different from other super pac's and how ms. clinton might benefit if she runs. this is half an hour. >> let me do some quick introductions. we are running short on time. we are going to get started. if folks have questions, we will try to take a few. afterward, feel free to come up.
4:19 pm
and hopefully we can get questions answered and get through everything as quickly as possible. first, to my left, we have nikki titus. then we have -- what is your title? >> politics, advocacy and partner. a lot going on. >> who used to work with me. and then we have eli down at the end. he generally causes trouble, but is one of the founders of rising tide interactive and has been working with the ready for hillary campaign.
4:20 pm
i'm going to turn it over to you guys. nikki is going to walk through the first slides. we will go from there. >> to echo mike, thanks to everyone for sticking around and coming down today. we are excited to share the work ready for hillary has been doing and paint a picture for you so you can see why it is a different kind of super pac and something we should be excited about. eli is going to walk through the why we are different. >> i just want to give a shout out to a couple of other folks in the room. you have safed, the communications director and in the back, tracy, the senior adviser. they are awesome. >> we have upended the model of what a super pac looks like. we have a few statistics about
4:21 pm
the more traditional model. and how they have existed up until this point. americans for prosperity, which is the primary vehicle of the koch brothers, you will see on the left is the 2012 revenue picture. we have broken that out into donations that were raised from checks over $1 million and checks below $1 million. as you will see, that is just an
4:22 pm
enormous amount of money coming from a relatively small group of people. on the right represents the amount of money was spent at the presidential level on independent expenditures. as you can see, it was almost all television advertising. there was a little bit of digital in there. almost all of these ads were attack ads against president obama. it was very much one way communication. the super pac was pushing out negative information about the president, the user, very little opportunity to interact. it is just one-way communication. similarly, this is american crossroads, a picture of the 2012 cycle, which was cofounded
4:23 pm
by karl rove. on the left, you will see their revenue picture. we broke it out differently. the red represents grassroots donations that are $200 or less. it accounts for approximately 1/260th of the revenue, from actual grassroots donations. on the right side, you have an enormous amount of television advertising against the president one-way. >> so now specifically about ready for hillary. let's start with a quote from "the new york times," repeats small donors emulating the advantage obama had in battling republican outside groups. so i want to jump in from a facebook perspective and talk about advertising trends we see on facebook within the third-party super pac space. overwhelmingly the advertising i see is certainly negative.
4:24 pm
well facebook is an amazing two-way communication channel, it is definitely used for most super pacs to just be this distribution of really negative content. for the most part, that is repurposed think tv and blasting it out to audiences on facebook. to juxtapose that, and why ready for hillary has been so unique, in their evolution on facebook, it is this meld of grassroots support a lot of folks use facebook for and social media. as well as a strong direct response channel. it is this meld of brands. that is a unique model of how super pac's can leverage digital. and then to highlight some of these things, so you can see how we are different, 98% over contributions are $100 or less. compared to the crossroads number, which was based on $200 contributions which was 1/260th
4:25 pm
of everything they raised. 98% are 100 of or less. and i believe the number currently is we have about 30,000 individuals who have given exactly $20.16. we have 20,000 donors and if you are on our e-mail list, you we are very close to breaking one hundred thousand, which we are excited about. if you have not donated, hopefully this will help you. three out of four of our donations are for $25 or less. we have no six-figure donations. he could take unlimited funds, but we decided we were only going to take up to $25,000.
4:26 pm
as you can see, we are focused on our low dollar donors. 100% goes to a grassroots infrastructure. we are not running tv ads. we're finding hillary supporters and engaging them in a positive way. >> that is the goal, to be able to have this enormous list of supporters that, if hillary decides for president, she will be able to access not only money to respond to outside groups but also to make sure we can turn out individuals on the ground for key events. make sure there is an army of people who are going to be willing to volunteer for the campaign at a moments notice.
4:27 pm
that is all great in theory, we wanted to walk through in practice how we sketched out how you would build that model from the ground up. interestingly, and this is true of almost any organization, less than 1% of your target audience is ever going to type in the url of your website. in order to make it successful, and currently we have identified 2.5 million hillary supporters in the database, we needed to find them on the internet and give them a hook to come in and join our movement so we could build and have the infrastructure to achieve our ultimate end. the first way we did that, and while there was a lot of press from the very first thing, we
4:28 pm
bought google ads on hillary clinton's name so when individuals were looking for information on her, they also had the opportunity to raise their hand and say i am ready for hillary. i want her to run for president. search engine marketing, while thought of as the first piece of internet advertising, is a relatively small piece of the total pie. that is why we also did display and social advertising on websites that hillary clinton supporters are likely to visit including news and entertainment websites. >> sorry. could not see. so to talk about the facebook component of this, there's a couple of elements to that strategy that were interesting
4:29 pm
and again unique, particularly within the super pac space. so on one side, this idea of building your grassroots support and doing acquisition. fan acquisition was definitely something where we, facebook was recommending a much more scaled-back strategy. advent don't go all in the fans. be thoughtful about it. a lot of people still go aggressively toward trying to get to large numbers of fans. one interesting thing i would like to call out that most people don't do, that we recommend, is think about fan acquisition in the context of social context or one degree of separation.
4:30 pm
you don't need, if you are focused on a congressional race, you don't need to get 100% of eligible voters fans of your page. you need enough to get on hundred percent coverage through their friends. the reason is that allows you to serve, whether it is ads, or organic content, which has a lot of impact, message recall, that sort of thing. that was a big part of the fan acquisition strategy ready for hillary had. figuring out our target markets and selectively do fan acquisition to grow the community of people who then, through their friends, we can reach everyone in that audience. that was strategic and cost-efficient. the other component is the diversification of their content. a lot of super pac's, this is a one directional channel of
4:31 pm
negative commentary, negative content. just a repackaging of video to do that. page posts, youtube, that sort of thing. ready for hillary is focused on having a broad range of different types of content on facebook. close, status updates, a lot of imagery. that is something they have a huge arsenal, beautiful imagery. a lot of photo posts, which is similar to what you would see in a grassroots organization than a super pac that is hammering you with single types of content. it is interesting because it was not just kind of all fluffy and feel good content. every content had a message and
4:32 pm
often had a specific task. this idea of diverse content was interesting and compelling and engaging you would want to see, but with a clear component to that. >> in addition, we have a very strong on the ground residence and actually you can see one thing. we are doing ready to lead training with women across the country. the other things is the ready for hillary bus tour. if you have not had a chance to see at the bus, it will be at the event tomorrow evening. it has gone coast to coast. we have had phenomenal turnout at every event. we have hosted a day of action. we are out on college campuses and are organizing ready for hillary university chapters. we have also done roundtables with constituency groups such as black americans, all across the country as well and have had great turnout and a lot of activism coming out of those.
4:33 pm
we spent the month of june on the road attending pride events all across the country and some phenomenal support, which we were excited to have. and we also host to 2016 fundraisers. it is more about getting everybody together in a room and showing a large group of support for hillary than it is about ringing in $500 contributions or having a traditional high dollar fundraiser. the next component is moving folks through the letter of engagement. so those events on the ground are one component. we think about the strategy in a different way. >> those also give us a good opportunity to reach out to people and bring them into the process.
4:34 pm
once you have somebody who has taken some sort of action, you can't say we want you to donate money and own a piece of the movement right away. and so building engaged and lasting support means engaging people in a lot of ways. so on the lower end of the side you will see what we like to think of as low bar asks. liking the facebook page, free bumper stickers, asking people to sign pledges on the website to support hillary clinton for president. what they have taken those actions, it is easier to move them up to get invested. >> as people move through these low bar actions, we are able to put people into the social
4:35 pm
organizing tool, which is a great place to give supporters something to do, using the tool to reach out to friends and bring them into the ready for hillary network. the other tool that is very powerful for us is that it feeds into the voter files. we are able to learn more information about our supporters by matching them up directly. another component that is part of moving people up the ladder of engagement is purchases. are you a buyer? some folks like to mix their donation as a purchase. they feel better about it. i am buying a t-shirt. instead of just giving $20. you get a little value. and ultimately getting folks to make a contribution to ready for hillary. we are gearing up to do a lot of really exciting things as we head into the fall. one of the big things we are doing, we will be helping
4:36 pm
candidates up and down the ticket that hillary campaigns for. we first did this with terry mcauliffe during his governor's race and also phil deblasio. what we planned on doing is capturing, with a photo, a picture of hillary lost she was campaigning for the candidate and taking a quote from that event and putting it on a photo and putting it on facebook and going to our supporters and saying we know you're into hillary. here is what she has to say about his candidate. here is why you should support them financially. we plan on mobilizing our network not just financially but driving folks to engage on the ground, whether volunteering or turning out to organize themselves in their own
4:37 pm
community. you think it is a really great value add. we have folks who have said they are really for hillary. that is awesome. some of these folks are interested in her. they might not be out there engaged in the 2014 process. here is an opportunity to take that group of people and direct them to the midterm elections. we are looking forward to them hitting the ground across the country and amplify the work we anticipate hillary is going to do in the last 90 days of the election cycle. so that is our presentation. i'm going to let mike go ahead. we will try to take some
4:38 pm
questions from folks and then we'll go from there. >> thanks. i will take the first question, if that is ok. can you tell us about -- so, these movements that we see around the presidential campaigns, by their nature they are not sanctioned by the actual candidate. how did you guys get the idea to go ahead and start this and why the super pac? >> ready for hillary was started by two volunteers and a po box. in january of 2013, i guess. and the idea was to capture all of the latent energy around the hillary candidacy and give people a place to go. it did not only have to be used for evil to run aggressive negative ads. we wanted to take the structure and say let's go out in the field and give people a positive thing to focus on and show hillary we are ready and we want her to hear that and know that from us. >> cool.
4:39 pm
one more, my next question is, on e-mail, it seems like you guys are building a huge e-mail list, a list of supporters. what are you going to do with that list if hillary were to announce and get started? >> our game plan is that hillary will decide to run. when that happens, we will be the first ones to say, hey, everything we have been working for is here and hillary is ready. we will be able to direct them into an official campaign site. we would plan on doing that for a period of time. we will continue to take our list and pivot them to hillary. the other thing is we are certainly going to be looking for ways that we can sell or trade or swap our data with the potential candidacy. we really believe we are gathering great information and data that will be helpful to
4:40 pm
her, should she decide to run. >> that differentiates this group from some of the other draft efforts that might have come in previous elections. what we have seen is that these lists are enormously valuable. the obama campaign raised some $400 million from internet donations of this magnitude. and the romney campaign in some sense seem to be caught flat-footed in that they suffered because they had a much later start whereas the obama campaign was able to really never stop messaging and organizing their grassroots infrastructure after the 2008 campaign. they had a four year head start on everybody else and the ability to have that type of enormous infrastructure to go to, we think, can make a great
4:41 pm
deal of difference. >> one other thing that is important to note, and is often overlooked, while secretary of state hillary had to shut down her political operations. people are always like, oh, hillary clinton. she spent four years representing our country around the world or that is what she was focused on. we have brought her supporters back out to say we're going to stand here and get organized and let her know we plan on being there right out of the gate so she does not have to spend time building the initial network. >> sounds good. questions. if you have a question, raise your hand. go ahead. >> what about the restriction on super pac's? how does that play into the calculations?
4:42 pm
you can't just hand the list over. >> right. we are an independent expenditure. we do not coordinate with any candidate. but we do believe that the laws are such they do allow assets to be sold and traded among candidates and committees and state parties. so we believe that we are going to wind up in the right place. >> more questions? cool. >> how does the messaging differ for an organization like yours versus say a traditional campaign organization? what different messages are you guys using? that maybe would be different than what other people have seen before. >> one of the things that is unique about this organization
4:43 pm
is that we are not so -- it would be presumptuous to think ready for hillary could dictate what hillary clinton's message is going to be. this is not a campaign. it is focused on building a grass-roots army and infrastructure. for every time hillary goes out and gives a speech about recent things that have happened, we are echoing that to make sure our e-mail list knows the key points she has hit on and give people opportunities to really join in the efforts she is promoting. and also using her as a force of personality. a lot of the imagery you see on the facebook page and on the
4:44 pm
e-mail list and other channels are things we have done a lot of testing on and seeing that people really respond to. she is an inspiring figure. and really focusing on using those as hooks to make sure people take additional actions to further achieve our ultimate goals. >> also it is interesting, and politics there is very few organizations that have access to this kind of brand. like this very much is, in my work, when i think about trends and where people on facebook are having success, it is the really big brands from this idea of constant brand management and how they are going to add value so that at the end of the day, you can make those asks and keep people engaged.
4:45 pm
ready for hillary is unique in the sense you have access to this amazing brand. there is an element of consistent reinforcement. and display and promotion of that brand and asking people to take actions and driving convergence. more so than other super pac's, i can't think of another one that has this much of a real brand strategy. particularly on facebook. >> doesn't it concern you that you are so much on facebook. for those of us who do not facebook from anything else, you are limiting the group you are addressing.
4:46 pm
>> we may have skewed, allowed you to see a skewed view of where we are focusing. facebook is a large component of our online strategy. however, it is by no means our driving force. we have a successful direct mail program right now that has been doing phenomenally well. we are seeing a lot of positive support there. like you saw our on the ground support. we are on the ground, with the ready for hillary. we are attending festivals and fairs and other community events across the country. you don't have to be on facebook to be part of this network. >> like this is skewed digitally because we are at netroots, but even within the internet sphere, there is an enormous amount of
4:47 pm
outreach outside of facebook. you are right. there are a whole lot of people who are hillary supporters that don't have facebook accounts. we have engaged in a lot of ways to get folks involved. the search engine marketing, display advertising, we have used a lot of targeting strategies. i could bore people for a really long time. we have done list rentals with progressive groups. facebook is just one piece of a larger puzzle. >> we also are active on mobile and have also done some constituency targeted campaigns that are fabulously successful, targeted to spanish speakers. which we were able to capitalize on hillary's remarks on immigration and amplify that message, which was awesome for
4:48 pm
us to do. >> cool. i think we are over time. maybe we can take one last question. >> really quick, you touched on it a little bit, how did you, for the online advocacy, how do you turn that into actually getting the actual data? if you're getting people on facebook, like, not going into your database. i was wondering how you do this. >> we have used facebook fan campaigns to expand our reach for advertising and our advertising is very much interactive. i need you to click on something and come to our page and then i have your information. one of the ways we do this is by asking people to sign a pledge or to say i want a free bumper
4:49 pm
sticker. we will send it to you. we are focused on making sure that information comes back to us and into our database. if we don't, we are obviously losing an opportunity to make sure that someone who is interested in hillary, that we can stay in touch with them. >> the facebook like, obviously we want to convert them into taking a higher bar ask. even just an e-mail address, we are trying to make sure we get their address so we have information on them. we can do that through the store bumper sticker, donations, and more. >> we are doing it on the ground. we are at the ready for hillary, a great deal of book signings. there we are with hillary supporters and we are able to capture their information by
4:50 pm
asking them to sign up directly. >> cool. like i said, folks will be around afterwards to take any questions you may have been thanks to you guys for doing the panel. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> faith in freedom coalition founder ralph reed spoke at the western conservative is summit in denver. the middle east, the bloodiest, most unstable region in the world is in flames. across from the heart of africa to the mediterranean. a bloodthirsty desperate and and dictatorespon that this president crossed a red line and said if he cost it
4:51 pm
he would pay end then retreated at the behest of vladimir putin. the dictator has slaughtered 160,000 of his own innocent civilians. this administration sat in the cheap seats and watched it happen. catholic priests and evangelical ministers have been beheaded by al qaeda terrorists seeking to overthrow that administration. in egypt, the muslim brotherhood took power and immediately started to destabilize the sinai pen until a turning it into the wild west and it has been replaced by a military regime. in iraq, isis and al qaeda oversee the caliphate all the way to the outskirts of baghdad and over 60,000
4:52 pm
christians in iraq, the last remaining christians in that country have literally had to flee for their lives. and they're mocking the entire free world and essentially and thison the grave administration cannot do anything other than send military advisers. remarks fromof his last month that the conservative summit in denver. you can watch the entire speech easternat 8:00 p.m. on c-span. we are showing book tv in prime time. a look at notable books, first "forcing the spring -- inside the fight for marriage equality." blood feud -- clinton's
4:53 pm
versus the obamas." former mayor of washington, d.c., "mayor for life," the life of marion barry, junior. since the40 years watergate investigation and a cbs news special report from heust 8, 1974 before resigned. we will show that resignation speech and a discussion about the fall from power providing insight into the presidency. you can watch that tonight on c-span 3. >> what makes america great the, evolution. camperspotlight with -- campusault and
4:54 pm
sexual assault and student debt. fighting infectious disease and food safety. in the history tour showing sights and sounds. find the schedule and week in advance and let us know. call us at -- e-mail us at comments@c -span.org. join the conversation. like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. tomorrow on "washington journal," the latest on u.s. military strikes in iraq. then the association of medical colleges talks about the dock or shortage in the u.s. and its potential impact on patients. all of that tomorrow in washington journal starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern. our first guest co-authored.
4:55 pm
airstrikes andrt , the firstaken today airstrikes and president obama authorized airstrikes yesterday. prevent a humanitarian crisis. stability keys is to and it they say it's too early to see how the military might be involved. the white house held at the briefing. spokesman john ernest answered questions from reporters. good afternoon. nice to hear you are all in a good mood on this friday afternoon. there is just a nice little buzz. maybe it's anticipation. either way, i like it. taking his seat.
4:56 pm
>> pretty punctual. >> come on. set the record straight. there you go. i don't have any announcements so we will go straight to questions. darlene? >> follow-up on iraq and the airstrike by the drones earlier today. anticipate additional strikes today and over the weekend? -- do you anticipate? can you give us a sense? >> the authorization the president has been -- has given for military action is very limited in scope and was clearly described in the remarks that he delivered last night. i do not have any operational at dates to share in terms of additional military action.
4:57 pm
the department of defense did confirm this morning that a military strike was carried out in iraq. additional updates will come directly from them. the department of defense does have significant capability and will be prepared to use it in pursuit of the goals the president articulated last night. >> what is your best definition of "limited?" >> i will describe it in three different ways. thet and foremost, protection of american personnel. there are americans, military and diplomatic officials, there. the artillery position that was maintained by isi l hit early this morning east coast time was focused on targets that were th--defending
4:58 pm
and that is why it occured. the protection of personnel in iraq is a top priority and one that merits the use of military force. to thisnd is related urgent humanitarian situation that exists. there is a religious and ethnic minority, a population of thousands who were stranded at the top of this mountain. they are marshaled up the base of the mountain vowing to kill anse who defend and it is urgent humanitarian situation. the united states military last night upon the authorization of the president successfully carried out an air drop of supplies, food and water, to those individuals stranded to try to provide some humanitarian relief. the president is authorized military strikes that could be
4:59 pm
used to address the situation at the mountain. there are kurdish forces seeking to dislodge the situation. if american military can be airstrikes could be carried out in pursuit of that goal. the third is slightly broader but it is related to our belief and commitment in supporting integrated iraqis security forces and kurdish security forces as they unite the country to repel the threat that is posed by the isil advance. what will be required is an integrated, inclusive, political leadership in iraq. it is why this country stands formationupport the of an exclusive government in
5:00 pm
iraq. there have been significant progress on that front in the last few weeks. there has been the appointment and president, a speaker, two deputy speakers that reflect the diversity of their population. the head of the government once that government has formed, we would anticipate and we would the continuing to urge the government to pursue an inclusive governing agenda to confront the threat posed by isil. the united states stands prepared to support that government formation. include additional american combat troops being deployed to iraq. >> on the humanitarian situation, is there a plan to get those people up in the
5:01 pm
mountains and is there a role for the u.s. in operations? -- that is what prompted the airdrop of supplies. prong as the president described it in his remarks last night is the possibility of targeted military strikes that could dislodge the isil forces. that would be in support of kurdish security forces. so we would be working in support of kurdish forces who those who arefree trapped at the top of the mountain. but again, what is not contemplated here is the
5:02 pm
introduction of american troops in a combat role to alleviate the situation. >> can you comment on the president's involvement in this and, say, jordan [indiscernible] other leaders trying to get allies to join this campaign? if the president places other phone calls that we can read out, we will mention that later today. the president was briefed on the military strike that was carried out this morning east coast time and the president will stay in close touch with the national security team today so that he can be updated as necessary. isis makinge seen gains, the u.s. has sent military advisers.
5:03 pm
you and he had said that there is no military solution to this and that the united states should not get dragged into a war. what is to stop that from happening? and what is to stop the islamist forces from progressing further into iraq? >> let me try to take as individually. the first one, which in some ways is the most important for the american people to understand and the president said clearly in his remarks last night, if you will indulge me, i will repeat them. as commander-in-chief, the president said, i will not allow the united states and the dragon to fighting another war in iraq. even as we support iraqis as they take the fight to these terrorists, american combat troops will not be returning to fight in iraq. so that is a very clear expression from the commander in chief about what the limit of
5:04 pm
any military action will be. that is a clear enunciation of the kind of principle that is at stake here, which is this belief that there are many challenges facing the people of iraq right now and it's the view of the president that those challenges cannot be solved by the mayor -- by the american military. they can only be solved by an inclusive government of the people of iraq. they have made progress in trying to form that government. we are hopeful that, once that government is formed, they will pursue the kind of inclusive governing agenda that is required to unite that country in the face of the threat that exists in that country right now. if there is a role in the american military to play in supporting the iraqi people and that inclusive government and an integrated security force that is capable of secure in the
5:05 pm
country, we will use that american military prowess in pursuit of that goal as well. national clear security interest of the united states for there to be a stable iraqi government that can stable iraq and a secretive force that has necessary capability to address the security situation in that country. these are all difficult challenges and i don't mean to minimize them. but we have a very clear point of view that is based on our recent experience about the limits of american involvement in that kind of endeavor. is this isat means the situation that is a very difficult challenge but it is not a challenge that can be solved by the american military.
5:06 pm
there is support that can be provided by the american military, but this is a situation that will only be solved by the them -- the iraqi people and a government that reflects the views of iraq's diverse population. >> will invite time for the iraqis to form their government and repel isis? >> i would not describe it that way and i don't think the president did either. the president authorized military action to address an urgent, even dire humanitarian situation on the mountain and more generally a willingness on the part of the american people to continue to stand with the people of iraq as they pursue a reflective of theflecte population of iraq and that is
5:07 pm
under threat by isis extremists who are making advances across the country. our desire is in clear interest in national security for us to support the iraqi people as they confront that threat. this is a threat that we cannot confront for them. it is a threat that can only be met and defeated by a unified iraq in support of an integrated, capable iraq he security force. if that requires the support of the american military, that a support that we are ready to offer. but we will not offer it in the form of a prolonged military conflict that involves the united states of america. and it will not involve american troops returning in a combat role. border patrol data show a decline in the number of apprehended at the border illegally and adults as well. how does i didn't factor into the president's thinking and
5:08 pm
acting unilaterally to address the situation? >> the first thing about the data that is important to understand is we have seen a downward trend over the last for six weeks -- four to six weeks. however, it is important to understand that, compared to a even ago -- a year ago or two years ago, there are still apprehensions taking place at an elevated rate. so while they have come down from the peak we saw earlier this summer, the rate is still toh when you compare it broader historical trends. the second point i wanted to make on this committee historical trends also indicate that, as the weather cools and we enter the following winter the rate of apprehension, the rate of those who try to enter the country go
5:09 pm
back up. the volatility in these numbers are something that the administration remains concerned about and it is why we have taken some steps within the executive branch to reprogram devote somend to resources to the border. even though we have seen a decline in the rate, we want to make sure that resources are necessary if and when volatility is rich in houston to that situation and the numbers go back up. also -- volatility is reintroduced to that situation and the numbers go back up. we are hopeful that, when they return, they will take steps to provide those resources. president'ss to the commitment to act unilaterally
5:10 pm
, i think two things about that. failuret is congress's and house republicans' failure to address a problem that we all evidence of how poorly congress has performed in trying to address this problem. and because congress has failed to act, the president is going to use the power that is nested within the executive branch to try to take some stance that will address this problem. again, those steps will not be as robust or impactful or as long-lasting as an enactment of legislation. but there may be some things that the resident can do within the confines of the law to address the problem. and if there are, the president will not hesitate to act on them.
5:11 pm
immigration, in the course of the last couple of years in the realm of our political debate, the need to reform the system held pretty intensely by certain segments of the population. but i think many americans consider this to be something less than top priority. the president considers it to be a high priority because of the economic benefits that exist and the potential for addressing some of these problems in a common sense way were great. as a result of the media attention around the border, i think we have seen in some of the public holing that your news organizations have done on this issue, there is a broader awareness among the american electorate and that this is a significant problem. there's also awareness that congress has done nothing to solve this problem.
5:12 pm
in fact, there is broader awareness in the american haveorate that republicans been actively blocking efforts to solve this problem. withinsident will act the confines of the law to try to solve some of these problems. >> president obama is the fourth u.s. president in a row to engage in military action in iraq. he ran for president on a platform and in the war in iraq. was -- ending the war in iraq. in this action? the president is just as determined to make sure that the united states is not dragged back into a prolonged military conflict in iraq. >> given the fact that he ended the war in iraq, maybe this might not be a good idea. >> i think the president on
5:13 pm
numerous occasions has amply demonstrated his commitment to using american military might to protect american people all around the world. that was evident last night. that has been evident in other situations as well. that hasn't changed. what is also evident is the president's determination to ensure the united states is not drawing -- not dragged back into a military conflict in iraq. >> when assessing the isis says, if theid he jv team puts on lakers uniforms, that does not make them kobe bryant. does that mean that isis is no longer the jv's? >> there is no question that the later uniforms that were worn, to use that -- to draw out that analogy a little bit -- that were worn by the al qaeda
5:14 pm
hasership in afghanistan been decimated and defeated in afghanistan. there is a question about that. that is the result of the many decisions made by the president and the courageous service of our men and women in uniform and our men and women in the intelligence agencies. what is also true is that there are other organizations that subscribe to the violent extremist ideology that is espoused and promulgated by al qaeda. many of those groups and nations across the globe are not particularly sophisticated, are focused on local sectarian conflicts that don't pose a significant or immediate threat to u.s. interests or the u.s. homeland. let me finish. there are a couple of other organizations that do pose a more substantial threat to the united states and our interests.
5:15 pm
al qaeda in the arabian peninsula. you have seen the united states in concert with our allies and partners take significant steps, important steps to mitigate the threat that is those by those organizations that do have the ability to try to strike the united states and, in some case, even try to strike the homeland. we do remain concerned about the military proficiency thatstrated by isil, and is why you have seen the president take steps, including the operation of military force, that would protect american citizens who might be harmed by isil. >> ultimately, is it up to the iraqis to eliminate the isis threat? >> it is up to the iraqi people and the iraqi government to address the security situation in their country. we talked about what will be required. there will be americans a point that is provided, but there will
5:16 pm
not be american troops returning to iraq in a combat role. the president is determined to make sure that the united states is not drawn back into a military conflict there. but the challenges that are there now are the challenges that can only be addressed by the iraqi people. a little bit. jessica. there were military strikes here but none in syria. >> there are more than a couple of differences between the situation in syria and the situation in iraq. let me highlight a couple of the more important ones that would illustrate the things that are driving the president's decision-making. importantly, the united states's involvement in iraq is by invitation by the iraqi government.
5:17 pm
second, the united states has in significant intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance resources in iraq that ensures that american decision-makers, the american military, and the american intelligence officers have pretty good visibility of the situation on the ground in iraq. those kinds of assets and that kind of intelligence to that exist as itnot relates to the situation in syria. a consequence of those intelligence efforts that have been underway in iraq sometime is that we have enhanced military capability in iraq. using intelligence and using the partnership that exists between the united states, kurdish security forces and iraqi scary capabilityre is more
5:18 pm
-- iraqis security forces, there is more capability to take beneficial steps for the security in a country. for highlights the need people who are try to make decisions about confronting the situations, to consider them on a case-by-case basis. there is no direct correlation between action in one place and inaction in another in terms of guiding the decisions that are made solely by the consequences for american national security. >> the white house continues to get criticism over not having assigned [indiscernible] there was a remnant of american troops, it would not have gotten this big and would not have gotten to this point. >> i have heard that argument made by some. the argument that those is thatals are making the situation might be different if there were still tens of thousands of american troops in
5:19 pm
a combat role in iraq. the consequence of that sort of military posture is that, right now, american servicemen and women would be on the front lines fighting isil in cities and towns all across iraq. the president does not believe that that would be in the national security interest of the united states of america. the president does not believe that would be in the best interest of the united states military. and there is a fundamental disagreement about that. however, i would submit that the investment -- the vast majority of the american public would be on the side of the president in reaching the conclusion that the situation in iraq, the situation is best resolved by the iraqi people by an inclusive iraqi government and by a capable iraq security force that has the ability to represent and protect
5:20 pm
the interest of every citizen in iraq. the united states can be in a position to offer support, military and otherwise, to the iraqi government and security forces as they carry out that effort. but the president does not believe it would be in the interest of the united states of america for tens of thousands of american combat troops to be on the ground in iraq fighting isil right now. that is an honest disagreement that exists between the president and some of his critics on capitol hill, some of which are in the republican party. >> [indiscernible] so you add thousands of american troops on the ground in iraq, they would still be on the front lines fighting isil trying to protect iraqi towns and cities. and there president does not believe that that would be in the interest of american national security. the invitation
5:21 pm
conveyed? in terms of what the conversation was like and who was on either end of that conversation, i would refer you to the state department. an imitation -- the iraqi political issue has been discussed publicly. >> can you tell us if iraq is subject of the weekly address tomorrow? >> i don't believe the president has taped the weekly address but i would not be surprised if that is a topic. >> this date department said there was a meeting here in the white house earlier today to coordinate regional partners and allies that may be interested in helping with ammunition
5:22 pm
supplies. i'm wondering if part of those conversations with allies is bringing them in for military operations in iraq. >> i would refer you to the department of defense on that matter. but let me say a couple of things about that that might be instructive for you. the first is that there are these joint operation centers that exist in iraq. these are operation centers that include american military personnel, officials from kurdish security forces, and personnel from iraq security forces. jobs, as the military calls them, -- jocks, as the military calls them, are up and running and they are involved right now on the ground. through those joint operation the iraqior example, security forces have been able to deploy assets in support of kurdish security forces that are operating on the ground. that has been a pretty effective tactic so far, something we will continue to consult with them
5:23 pm
about. there are of course other partners in the region that do -- that the united states has worked with on a variety of issues to confront this and other challenges and the broader instability in the region. for example, jordan, the president spoke to the king this morning. we certainly will be in touch with them as we confront the ongoing situation in iraq. it is also true of nations like turkey and the uae. there are also other nato allies of the united states that are concerned and have made public their concerns, both about the humanitarian situation in iraq and the broader security situation in iraq. i would say that we will continue to consult with them in the days ahead. >> [indiscernible] >> we will continue to consult and cooperate with them. towe have any specific asks make of them, then we will make them directly. >> house speaker john boehner
5:24 pm
commented on the strikes today. he said that he was dismayed. he thinks we should reengage more freely in iraq. >> the speaker may be one of those individuals who suggests that it would be in the core interest of american national security for there to be thousands or even tens of thousands of american troops to be on the front lines in iraq fighting isil. i will allow him to state his own position if that is the case. if that is the case, there is just an honest disagreement between the present and the speaker of the house on that specific issue. hasuld point out that there been extensive consultation between the president and leaders in congress in confronting this issue. if you'll indulge me for a second, i will review some of the highlights of that consultation. the president convened a meeting here in the white house with the congressional leadership to talk about this issue. this was the congressional leadership in both houses, in both parties. it also included members of
5:25 pm
relevant committees, national security committees, on this topic. that was a follow-up to a meeting the president convened a in june with the four leaders of the house and senate, the bipartisan set -- i partisan leadership of the house and senate. in the president's statement officialht, his announcement to use military force in iraq, there were a number of phone calls that were made from senior members of the presidents national security team to members of congress. this included the bipartisan leaders about the house in the senate, the chair and ranking member of the house and senate intelligence committees, the house and senate foreign relations committee, and even some members of the appropriations committee in both the house and the senate. so there has been a genuine and sincere effort on the part of
5:26 pm
this administration to closely consult with members of congress on this issue and we certainly welcome the partnership and support of those members of congress as we confront these very difficult challenges. there were statements issued by democrats and republicans that were complementary of the decisions the president announced last night. >> talking to appropriations suggest that you will seek any additional or emergency appropriations. >> not at this point. but it does indicate a sincere commitment to coordinate closely with the relevant officials on their preparations committee. so should that need arise in the future, they will have a keen understanding as to why that request as necessary. mike? >> to quit questions. -- two quick questions. can you talk about the specific things that triggered this intervention? were there particular things on the ground?
5:27 pm
was it a particular movement of isil in a particular place? when was he told those things? can you walk us through that? and second, following up on the last question -- and a lot of the reaction from the hill, while there have been statements from republicans, yes, we think this is a good idea, most of the statements have said it's too late. it should have been done sooner and their is encouragement to be more fulsome and a broader, more conference of plan as we move forward. are there efforts that will be underway to lay out what kind of longer-term strategy of this is at some point? that mr. i think mccarthy may be in the category -- wasviduals who feel raised by jessica earlier. there are a lot of people out
5:28 pm
there who are saying that the very limited targets you guys are talking about should be broadened and is there some reaction to that? and then the to talk. that -- mr.ise mccarthy may just have a difference of opinion with the president on what our core interest in iraq is and how it is best served. that will not inhibit our withtment in coordinating mr. mccarthy and members in congress on how we move forward in iraq. but make no mistake that the decisions made in iraq in consultation with congress will be decided or guided by the views about the equities relating to american national security. view that the protection of american personnel in iraq is of paramount concern and there is a stated willingness on the part of the president to act militarily in
5:29 pm
support of a unified iraqi government and a marketable and integrated iraqi security force. as it relates to the presidents briefings, it is difficult for me to talk a lot of detail from your. -- from here. president did receive a lot of updates from his national security team yesterday, from the department of defense personnel -- maybe saw the photos put up by the warehouse -- by the white house -- >> what was in the last week or two that led the president to decide, after weeks and months of holding back on airstrikes, what was a specifically that decision in him the that, ok, we will have to move in this direction? or did this all happen yesterday? >> i think there are three things that i can sexier and probably not the detail that you would like.
5:30 pm
but there are three things that come to mind. the urgent reports that we were -- of out of zend german zinjar mountain, those reports were deeply disturbing. and certainly influence to the president's decision to take military action in support of the humanitarian mission. over the course of this week that we saw those reports. the second thing that i would --e is there were reports and many of these are public isilts -- of advances that in the direction of virbil. and there is the question of the safety and security of american personnel there.
5:31 pm
it also led to the president's conclusion that the more robust military action could be required to ensure the safety and security of those american officials there. in the third thing i would note and this is an important part of this and relates to a principal the president first discussed it relates to the progress that the iraqis have made in forming a government. it was only in the last few weeks that we have seen the iraq's bullet for leadership take the steps to appoint a political iraq's leadership take the steps to appoint a speaker. eventuallys toward appointing a prime minister who would lead the government.
5:32 pm
so the success or at least the progress they have made in forming that government, in line with the procedures laid out in the iraqi constitution, it was a source of some encouragement that iraq's political leadership to have the inclusive government needed to unite the country. we will continue to urge them to make that kind of progress. the vice president has been on the phone frequently over the last several weeks, in touch with members of iraq's political leadership. you know he was in touch with president barzani and the last day or two to discuss some of these issues. he played a very important role in both urging iraq's political leadership in the governing agenda that we believe in but also in terms of their assessment of the situation on the ground in iraq.
5:33 pm
in terms of the authorization for airstrikes, is it open-ended in terms of time or is there an end date? >> the president has not laid out an end date. we will take the approach where those kinds of decisions are evaluated regularly and are driven by the situation on the as it relates to the safety and security of american personnel, but also as it relates to supporting the ongoing efforts of the kurdish security forces and iraqi security forces. >> when the president comes back from off as venue, will those meetings -- from martha's vineyard, will those meetings be related to this? >> i do not know. onre will be discussions these topics not next week but the week after.
5:34 pm
but there are other meetings scheduled, too. said the top priority is serving inamericans our bill and baghdad. case, then why not simply evacuate like he did in libya? that is one way to make sure they are ok. >> that certainly is an option. there is very important work that is being done at the consulate and at the joint operation center that i -- ioned earlier, tha mentioned earlier. >> is that a top priority? you mentioned a top priority was protecting americans. protecting americans and allowing them to continue the work they are doing there.
5:35 pm
that is what we are pursuing right now. >> will there be a drawing down of american personnel? >> you can check with the department of state on our posture when it comes to our personnel in the conflict. >> in the humanitarian effort, given that 200,000 or so have been killed in syria, more than 2 million forced from their homes, how did that not rise to the level of humanitarian intervention? but this, with a significantly smaller number of people did? >> there has been a significant humanitarian intervention in syria. >> but not by the military. >> that is my point, it was not a military intervention. donor to a bilateral syrian refugees who escaped the violence in that country. there have been significant resources educated to build up the modern opposition in syria
5:36 pm
and to rid the threat posed by some extremist opposition groups in syria and also to withstand the assault from assad regime. situation on the ground in both iraq and syria is different. the kindnsequences for of military capabilities and risks associated with different responses. the president is constantly evaluating both of these situations to determine what is in the best interest of america national security and that is what is driving the decisions that he is making in both trees. -- in both countries. >> so there is no specific end date. but you mentioned that our military engagement will not be prolonged. what is the definition of prolonged? >> i am not in the position to offer a specific date. but the president ran for this office determined to try to wind down the conflict in iraq
5:37 pm
responsibly and to bring our servicemen and women home. >> there is no end date, but it will not be prolonged. i just wonder what people should expect in terms of engagement. >> there is not a timeframe that i can share and now. but there are two principles at stake. and your insightful to notice the tension between the two. that happens to be true, sam. there is a determined -- there is a determination by the president to address the ongoing humanitarian situation and achieve a goal that is in the clear interest of america national security, which is a stable iraqi government that is able to exercise some control of the security situation in that country. that is necessary because we are talking a out a very volatile -- about a very volatile region of the world. restoring stability in that country is the goal of america
5:38 pm
national security. at the same time, the president is determined to ensure that the united states is not drawn back into a prolonged military conflict in iraq. one way we can prevent that from occurring is to not return combat troops or american troops in a combat role to iraq. that is something the present made very clear. that -- the president made very clear. so i am not in a position to offer a specific date, but i am able to offer a specific presidential commitment that a prolonged military conflict that has u.s. involvement is not on the table. >> i want to get your reaction together side of the criticism going. "we cannot bomb islamist extremists into submission or
5:39 pm
secure every bomb requires supporters." issue right? issue -- is she right? is she wrong? president said american combat troops will not return to fight in iraq. he continued to say because there is no american military solution to the larger crisis in iraq. that is an indication that the president believes in a pensive all i spent time regulating noterday, which is there is military solution to the underlying problems in iraq. there is only an iraqi political solution. our efforts, including our military efforts, are in support of an inclusive iraqi government that can bring some stability and security back to the people of iraq. it will require them to cover them -- to govern them in a way confidence that
5:40 pm
the iraqi government is looking after their interests and security. boots on the ground has a potential to be counterproductive. is that a concern that is shared i? >> there are principles that are at stake in terms of the protection of american personnel and supporting the formation of an inclusive iraqi government. these are difficult equities to balance. but the president has been pretty clear about what he thinks is the best way for us to balance those equities in a way that maximizes the benefits for american national security. >> i am hoping to get you to clarify something you talked about. you talked about the need for a political solution and he said that, if the iraqi government forms an inclusive government, it seems like you are saying there could be more military involvement.
5:41 pm
i'm hoping you could expand on that. does that mean there would be a broader mission of airstrikes? what are you saying happens if their government forms in a way that is not satisfactory to the u.s.? >> these are the kind of decisions that will be amazed -- will be made by the president based on the capability of american military in the decisions made by iraq's political leadership. we will also be evaluating the capability and integration of iraq security forces. we will be testing the degree to which they will be able to coordinate with kurdish security forces to confront the threats posed by isil. isillso the condition that is and whether they continue to have the capability to destabilize the security situation in iraq. there are a lot of factors at play here. despite all those factors, there is one underlying principle. this is a situation we cannot solve for the iraqi people.
5:42 pm
this is a situation the iraqi people must solve for themselves. the united states stands prepared to stand with them as they confront this difficult challenge. but it is the role of iraq's government and security forces to confront this threat. , ifhey confront that threat military assistance from the united states is necessary, the president will evaluate that request and conditions on the ground and the of the things i just mentioned to determine what is in the best interest of american national security. but the united states will not be dragged back into a prolonged military conflict in iraq and the president will not send military troops in a combat role. >> it sounds like you are not closing the door to somewhat of a broader mission, broader than or defending u.s. personnel. it is potentially broader
5:43 pm
depending on the political situation. indicated adent willingness to use military of an in support inclusive iraqi government that is successfully inspiring the confidence of the iraqi public and representing the interests of iraq's diverse population. there is a long-standing military relationship between the united states and iraq. there are long-standing political ties between the american government and the iraqi government. and the united states is committed to standing with our partners in iraq as they confront some of these threats. there are some limits, however, and those limits are rooted in the fact that these early challenges that can be solved by the iraqi people. >> the president said in 2011 when he brought home all u.s. troops that iraq is not a perfect place but we are leaving behind a sovereign stable iraq.
5:44 pm
what it better not to be so wrong? >> we saw that iraq's government pursued an agenda that was not inclusive. it did not succeed in unifying the country. a did not succeed in eating -- in even unifying security forces. that meant that iraq was not able to withstand the pressure and eventually the assault from isil. that is why the president, for a number of months, has been urging -- the truth is that he has been urging this for longer than a number of months, even years, including -- encouraging iraq's political leadership to pursue an inclusive governing agenda that would make iraq more strong and better able to confront threats that are posed by these extremist groups like isil. >> that is what happened before. i amer boehner said dismayed by the ongoing absence of a strategy to counter the
5:45 pm
great threat that isis poses to the region. what is the strategy to stop isis? >> that strategy is related to ensuring that they cannot use instability in iraq as a base of operations. >> they are today. >> so what the united states is doing is a couple of different things. thefirst is we are taking kind of action that will ensure close coordination between kurdish security forces, iraqi security forces, and american military forces to confront isil. the president announced a number of weeks ago that he was sending an assessment team to going to iraq as military advisors who can assess the situation on the ground, says the capability of who can assess the capability of iraq and kurdish secret he forces and offer advice as they confront this challenge. the president signaled the willingness, that if iraq
5:46 pm
-- the are willing american military can come in and offer support to iraq security forces to confront them. >> the goal has been to diffie and decimate core al qaeda -- the goal has been to defeat and decimate core al qaeda. the need for iraq to confront the threat that is posed by isil. the difference is and let's walk through this because this is important. core al qaeda was operating with virtual impunity in the area between afghanistan and pakistan. they were able to set up a terror network around the world, a pretty secure -- a pretty sophisticated medication structure that allowed the core al qaeda leadership in afghanistan to order, to organize, order and carry out catastrophic attacks against the u.s. homeland.
5:47 pm
whiletuation with isil, dangers, is different and it is why it is so important for iraq, with the support of the united states, to confront the threat that isil currently poses to the instability of iraq and to populations, including some minority populations that right now are being persecuted by isil in iraq. that is what accounts for the different approach in dealing with these two situations. but both the threat that is posed -- let me put it this way, the threat posed by isil is one that the president takes very seriously. they have demonstrated pretty sophisticated military capabilities in advancing in iraq even in the face of iraqi security forces and kurdish security forces. launchrobably cannot strikes against united states.
5:48 pm
but senator john kerry -- but secretary john kerry was saying that isis is a threat in the region and could be a long-term threat to u.s. 30. -- u.s. security. why is the goal not to defeat and decimate them? why is the goal just to support a government that, as you said, is in shambles? >> i don't think i said they are in shambles. ofaid they are in progress creating an inclusive government which is the key to reducing the potential that isil can attack the united states both in that region and eventually around the globe. >> i don't know if you saw this documentary where isis officials say that we will humiliate them
5:49 pm
everywhere that god will and we will raise the flag of all in the white house. >> i didn't see those comments. president spoke forcefully about commitment and the willingness to use military force to support the efforts of iraq's security forces to defeat them from using iraq as a base of operations but also to ensure that we can restore or at least strengthen the city -- the security situation in iraq and that we isil terrorists from terrorizing minority populations in iraq. disturbed bydeeply reports that there are christian villages that are being decimated violently by isil.
5:50 pm
we have talked quite a bit about he -- the of the is yazidi population that is trapped on this hill. it is why you are seeing the kind of reaction you have seen from the president and the united states military. some military analysts have described the airstrikes as [indiscernible] is that how you would characterize the airstrikes that were carried out today and how impactful they were? >> the description of warning shots is how they would be determined -- the interpreted by somebody else. what i can speak to is that the stated goal of that military action by the department of
5:51 pm
defenses to take out a group of isil that were threatening american personnel in that city. >> is there any indication that it slowed their dance? >> i am -- their advance? >> i am not in a position to comment on the security situation in iraq right now. i would refer you to the department of defense. consider arming christian forces? with have a partnership iraqi security forces who have shared some of those assets with kurdish security forces. we have also demonstrated a willingness and are carrying out efforts to increase the flow of supplies for my including arms, to kurdish security forces as they confronted the threat posed by isil.
5:52 pm
the joint operation centers have disclosing the activities of the military's that are acting there. as i mentioned earlier, we are pleased and continue to encourage efforts to integrate iraqi air assets with the ground offensives of the kurdish security forces. and that kind of integration and cooperation would be critical to their success. led to the extent that the kurdish security forces need additional resources, we are looking to increase the flow of those resources, including arms from the united states. >> what can you tell us about the faa prohibiting u.s. airlines and other commercial carriers from lying over iraq? how long can we expect that to last? >> i am not in the position to offer any additional information about that. you should check with the faa.
5:53 pm
they make those decisions independently. the president,a, in addition to saying that, when we have the capabilities to help, the united states cannot [indiscernible] is he satisfied that he has done enough to event that massacre that seems to be ongoing of more than 150,000 people that have been killed so far? '>> i think you're conflating two things. he was talking about the humanitarian situation in zinjar mountain. you have seen a strong response from united's aides to provide -- united states to provide assistance. to the united states is the largest donor of assistance to syrian refugees. and they governments were housing those refugees, there are large refugee populations in
5:54 pm
turkey and in jordan in particular. the united states has offered assistance to those countries for those who are fleeing violence in syria. the united states is invested and is working to try to meet the urgent humanitarian situation in syria as well. but as i mentioned earlier, the situation on the ground in iraq is different from the situation in syria and merits different responses from the united states. when you are making decisions from the best core security. >> people continue to be slaughtered. >> it is a tragic situation and it is why our efforts continue in that country to try to bring an end to that suffering. the agreement to form a unity
5:55 pm
government in afghanistan and the restarting of violence, i would like your reaction. afghanistan,tes to the secretary of state was in afghanistan over the last day or two to try to broker an agreement between the two presidential candidates there. >> the goal to achieve a unity government? >> in afghanistan? >> yes. >> he went there with the goal to broker a political solution to that electoral dispute. that was centered on ensuring that both candidates remained engaged in the effort to count all the ballots and inspire confidence in the electoral outcome of that contest. that is important because it will inspire confidence when the afghan people, in their democratic institutions and that
5:56 pm
will increase and strengthen the mandate of the eventual winner of that contest. that was the goal of the secretary of state, to continue to encourage and support the transition of power in afghanistan from president karzai to the next president that will be democratically elected. >> and the resumption of violence in the middle east, to whom do you ascribe the blame? >> the united states is very concerned with the developments in gaza. there is renewed rocket fire and -- resume the cease-fire negotiations only continue to urge all parties to do all they can to protect the lives of innocent civilians. to extend theeed negotiates but hamas has refused without israel meeting a list of their demands. to resumecision
5:57 pm
rocket fire, it will do nothing to help the expectations of the palestinian people. it is our hope that they will reach a cease-fire in the coming hours and include an agreement to cement a sustainable cease-fire. as you know, there are americans in cairo are dissipating in these negotiations -- are participating in these negotiat ions. u.s. negotiators had a request from hamas. question to be resolved at the negotiating table. we do not believe it was appropriate for hamas to restart rocket fire. simply,aq, practically, how will the yazidis get off the mountain? -- they will be slaughtered in four days instead
5:58 pm
of two. how will they get off that mountain? >> there is a strategy in place that is related to, first, meeting their basic humanitarian needs and that was the goal of their drop. data the aired -- the goal of the airdrop. >> we assume there will be a mole of those in the coming days. >> as needed. militaryd states stands ready to provide more supplies for the people that are stuck at the top of the mountain. the president has also ordered that military action could be used to try to end that seize. there are security forces confronting isil forces. can tip are forces that the balance, we will certainly look for an opportunity to do that. isil forces away
5:59 pm
from the air and then they would impact your a those civilians. >> the customer got have been operating in this area -- the peshmorga has been operating in this area for some time. president has authorized that kind of action in hopes ge would bei alleviated. offeringited states is air support. the goal, rely on ground morga, retakee pesh
6:00 pm
land and facilities from isil with the added benefit of air support? > >> legitimately speaking, i would say yes. is we dotant thing have confidence in the kurdish fighting forces. there demonstrated a willingness to fight as evidenced by several counterattacks that have been launched over the past several days. it is true in some locations kurdish forces have withdrawn in the face of more better equipped forces. while the kurdish withdrawal appears to be orderly, it continues to face challenges about regrouping and redistributing forces.

113 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on